|
||
Campaign vs. Metacampaign: Obama at the Crossroads
National campaigns don't really take place in in crowded halls, lobbyist lunches, debates, or even in the media. While each of these are important, they only matter because they provide cash - or create images - that help influence and shape what takes place on the real field of battle: the human imagination.
This may seem painfully obvious to some, yet its implications are subtle, and it's one reason why Barack Obama is so far behind in the polls. He is now going to be pressed to respond by changing his strategy, which he should. But if he changes in the wrong way the result could be fatal to his campaign. Should he go on the offensive? Sure - but only in a manner that fits his overall context, and only if he also finds several key issues that demonstrate he is the candidate of the future and its promise.
Polls and other quantitative measurements have their place, but campaigns suffer when they're emphasized at the neglect of the qualitative. Those qualitative campaign factors resonate on a number of conscious and unconscious levels, the way musical notes resonate with heard and unheard overtones. When they clash they make people uncomfortable.
In other words, a campaign isn't just an input/output model in the systems theory sense. It's also a work of art. It needs a literary or artistic coherence just as much as it needs an analytical foundation of policies and polling - and ideally, the two should operate in harmony.
For lack of a better term, let's go neologistic and call these overtones a "metacampaign." Metacampaigns aren't about policy. After all, campaign isn't just about itself anymore than a John Ford western is just about cowboys. If a "campaign" - the overt statements and policy positions of a candidate - conflicts with its own "metacampaign," the result is what anthropologist Gregory Bateson called a "double bind."
When Bateson used the term "double bind" he was describing the emotional trap family members are placed in when they're told something verbally (e.g. "I love you no matter what you do") that is contradicted by nonverbal messages. While this doesn't cause schizophrenia, as Bateson originally thought, it can certainly create problems. And it can exist in larger social groupings than the family.
While some of the reasons for Obama's current poll standings have been identified, there's been little or no discussion of the double bind issue. His campaign and his "metacampaign" have sometimes seemed out of sync. That's created a cognitive dissonance that can prevent people from becoming fully comfortable with him.
It's premature to suggest he can no longer win, as some Washington insiders are now saying (although if he doesn't act quickly that 'conventional wisdom' could become one more datum that gets fed into the public imagination.) But if reports like this one are accurate, his contributors are getting worried and are stepping up the pressure on him. That could cause him to replace one double bind with another by going on the offensive the way any traditional politician would.
The Obama "campaign" has made some understandable choices. Since he is African American and relatively young, they've elected to present him as conciliatory, as a unifier, and as a compassionate but cerebral figure. That makes good political sense, and it appears to suit his personality. But it's been done in a way that conflicts with his 'metacampaign,' which clearly identifies him as a figure of dramatic if not revolutionary change. Excess of caution, which might be seen as judicious in another candidate, reads as something approaching insincerity in Obama's case (even though it's probably exactly the opposite - to this outsider, it appears to reflect a genuinely judicious and contemplative nature.)
Fortunately for Obama, recent history gives us a precedent for handling this kind of campaign/metacampaign dissonance: Bill Clinton. If campaigns are works of art, Obama would do well to learn from the best artist of our time. Bill Clinton delivered the DLC message on many issues of substance, especially in his re-election campaign, yet managed to do so in a way that didn't conflict with his 'metacampaign' symbolism (which in many ways resembled Obama's.) He was able to preach centrism and still excite the electorate, because he was able to coordinate his change-oriented 'metacampaign' with his centrist speeches.
How can you talk about school uniforms and still appear dynamic? Bill found a way, by tapping into his own empathetic streak. Because he used school uniforms as an expression of warmth and compassion, rather than rigidity and control, this expression of social conversatism harmonized with the "new-style politics" image he conveyed.
Whether consciously or instinctively, President Clinton found a way to coordinate his campaign message with his metacampaign. The eye contact, the expressions of human concern, the lip-biting - people made fun of them, but they worked. They created harmony between his nonverbal and verbal messages, and brought his audience out of its double bind.
Should Obama start biting his lip? Hardly. Should he respond to falling numbers by going on the attack against Hillary, as he has begun to do? Yes - but carefully. He has to differentiate himself on both substance and symbolism. He has to take on her key differentiator - 'experience,' which as used by her campaign really means 'eight years of proximity to Presidential power.'
That means taking on the DLC-driven politics of the 1990s head-on. That means taking on lobbyists and consultants directly - including Blackwater lobbyists. And that means taking on the Big Dog - that is, Bill Clinton - in the right fashion. Obama's recent attack on "triangulation and poll-driven politics" is precisely the kind of thing he needs to do to gain ground. Yet Obama's kind of change should not be seen adversarial or "political," that is, based on old conflict paradigms. In other words, while his politics will essentially be progressive, he should be conveying this theme: Neither left or right, but up.
So he needs to confront the triangulation issue head-on, as he's doing. And Bill gave him a model he can now use against Hillary: When Bill thanked and "honored" President Bush in their debate for his years of service, it was a loving kiss of dismissal. Obama must eventually find a way to administer the same tender farewell to the former President and First Lady, without alienating them and their supporters, if he is to win the nomination.
But here is what's even more important than any adversarial strategy: Obama needs to introduce some exciting, new ideas that transcend the classic left/right paradigm. He could take on global warming as a cause that defines our national purpose, the way that the WPA did in the 1930's and reaching the moon did in the 1960's. He could adopt a new direction on national security that draws upon the best and not the worst of who we are as a nation.
And there's one issue where Obama has already drawn a clear policy distinction between himself and his rivals, including Sen. Clinton: healthcare. Obama can use the mandate issue, and healthcare in general, to differentiate himself as the "opportunity candidate," a position that fits with his youthful image and future-based orientation.
He also needs to show why he, and not Hillary, would be a better candidate against Giuliani. And lastly, he needs to show how he can excite the Democratic base before Chris Dodd or another dark-horse candidate takes that opportunity from him. (Sen. Clinton can neutralize this kind of threat from Obama and others by shifting her strategy and abandoning triangulation, which would also help align her campaign and metacampaign - but there's no sign at this point that she will.)
Obama needs to reframe his race with Hillary, and he needs to find those core issues that differentiate him from all his competitors. But he needs to act soon. Time is not on his side.
A Night Light
The Sentinel Effect: Healthcare Blog
Future-While-U-Wait
RJ Eskow at the Huffington Post
Comments for this post are now closed
Want to reply to a comment? Hint: Click "Reply" at the bottom of the comment; after being approved your comment will appear directly underneath the comment you replied to
Actually, I find some of the same appeal in Obama that I found in Bill Clinton circa 1992. When Obama's relaxed, he has a natural charm that Hillary can never touch. And when he says he wants to change the way we approach the issues, it's tempting to believe him, much as I believed Bill Clinton. (For me, that went out the window when he withdrew his support for gays in the miliatary.) Obama, too, can spoil it all by not following through; I'm still not convinced he was too sick to vote against labelling Iran a terrorist state. It would be refreshing to see him step up to the plate and roar, although we all know what that got Howard Dean.
Why in the hell should Obama jump on the Israeli driven bandwagon and label Iran a terrorist state?
Media Moguls have been rolling the bandwagon to get us all conditioned to the tune, and AIPAC has almost the entire government quaking in its boots in lackey subservience to Israel's position: TAKE OUT IRAN. Next will be Syria. God knows there'll be no mention ever of what Israel is guilty of for these some fifty years.
Truth is the AJC has this country tied into little knots for Israel's land grab.
The Elders are leery of Obama; he'll never get the nomination.
I would propose Senator Obama differentiate himself from the pack with something like this:
Which of us is most likely to break new ground?
If you believe this country needs to be breaking new ground, move on to something new, then I am your candidate.
I HAVE NEVER BEEN IMPRESSED WITH THE OB. I REALLY THINK THAT HE HAS A GALL TO RUN FOR PRESIDENT UPON BECOMING A JURNIOR SENATOR OF THE US. I DIDN'T EVEN LIKED HIS BOOK ABOUT HOPE...
Qualifications and experience didn't matter much because the voters didn' t consider that all all important when they voted for GWB.
Are the democrat contenders then all much too intelligent--too qualified --too experienced to be elected PREZ in 2008 ?
Now, now, janmB, you should no better then that...if you'd ask those who voted for GWB in 2000 that if qualifications and experience were really at stake between him and Al Gore, i'd bet you that 25% of those votes today, in hind-sight, would have switched over to Al Gore's camp. And even with all the vote fraud in Florida against Gore, and the electronic vote machines rigged soft-ware and hard-ware against Gore in 2000, wouldn't have mattered in the outcome of Florida's vote. Please remember, that Al Gore won the national popular vote in 2000, not Bush!
The major point i'm making is this: The Demo's should shy away from personality driven candidates, to more of issue driven candidates, because 'Hollywood" is for image, but President's should be about Character and Substance.
there's in old saying that goes like this: 'It's in the CONTENT that lies the FORM", not vice-versa...and my warning to those Democratic supporters of the big three front-runners, Hillary, Obama, and Edwards: These are personality driven candidates, flip-flop on the issues since 2000, corporate-lobbyists driven, professional politicians with "lip-stick and powdered" Hollywood make-up, and the status-quo stays the same.
If those believe that the Democratic three front runners of Hillary, Obama, or Edwards, will bring "progressive" change to America's future, will be sadly disappointed. Do you really believe bringing back the Hillary and Bill Clinton show, as an example, will save America's pressing domestic-international problems in '08? You got to be kidding...The Republican TV commercials in '08 national campaign will have a field day on this one. Bringing back 'old garbage to rehash' is not good news, bacause the whole Presidential campaign of '08 will center around 'personality' and 'character' issues, not around the Iraq war, Healthcare, or 'Global Warming'.
The question on whether or not Obama should change his "image' or 'media persona' to light a fire of support against front-runner Hillary, and gain points in the race for the Demo presidency, is complete folly.
Obama, as a decent, intelligent, good speaking personality, and young US Senator with class, that without the issue of being African-American running for President of the United States, is nothing more or nothing less, a political-centrist, corporate liberal, who is already being bought off by the private lobbyists in Washington D.C.
If the Democratic party wants to bring in new blood and have an independent candidate for President in '08, the 'people' should have someone that has no ties to the lobbyists and take on the biggest American issues with a clean-slate mind: To end the war in Iraq, Bring non-profit Universal Healthcare to Americans, and lead the world in the 'Global Warming' crusade for change.
The only potential candidate for President in '08 for the Democrats, and the only "progressive" potential candidate the Democrats have that has the best chance to win the National election for President in '08, and who has the best qualifications and credentials, is AL GORE....DRAFT HIM!
My first impression of Obama when I spoke to him was that he was a scripted politician with no real new ideas-for me nothing has changed.
Jump in and swim in the warm, gooey, rich cesspool of politics and power and expect to come out without smelly permanent stains.
Public financing is a mere beginning with strict guidelines of governance and disclosure.
Then, if you rustle up a candidate who votes according to the will of his/her constituents, we'd be on the road to recovery.
Forget it. We're drowning with fake smiles on our faces.
I don't know about you, but I hadn't gotten behind Obama to have him look like a "Hillary-lite". I want to support someone who clearly stands apart from Hillary and the mega-corporations. Kucinich right now seems to be the only Dem to fit that category. If we want another Republican-type in office than Hillary's your girl. Clearly the dems aren't satisfied with their Republican look-a-likes.
First of all RJ you write an interesting post for "centerist" independents like me. Although I'm not quite sure as to a couple of things such as your "concern" over bloggers, and what seems to be your blind faith in an unproven quantity (Obama).
Be that as it may, I would say that Obama is probably one of the finest, most decent men you'll ever come across.
However! In this society it is reasonable to believe that such "nice guys" finish last. Or if you would please explain to me WHY scum like Hillary Clinton is the "self-annointed" front runner or candidate of destiny as we seem to be hearing?
The old adage is that "Shit floats" or scum rises to the top. Clinton is an outstanding example of that. Therefore such better candidates as Richardson, Edwards, Kucinich, Biden, and yes, Obama, are marginalized.
Next is that Obama, while he is indeed that decent guy, is a babe in the woods where global considerations are concerned. He needs more seasoning if you will. I cannot, nor will I, place this country at serious risk while this man climbs the learning curve. Therefore in 2012 or 2016 he should be a fine candidate for POTUS.
Until then it would behoove ALL Democrats to do whatever there is in their power to keep "Bush In A Skirt" away from the nomination.
Garbage In-Garbage Out.
If they don't they'll get another Bush lap dog and heaven help us.
who DO you like, and WHY?
Bill Richardson. Experienced, statesman, proven leadership. Perfect by no means but in my humble opinion the best of the bunch. I could support an Edwards ticket as well.
How about you?
Apparently you have fallen for the Republican tag line of Obama's inexperience, a line they use to bolster Clinton's nomination, knowing they can rally more support for their candidate from their rank and file Clinton haters.
Obama is smart enough to surround himself with advisers and cabinet members who have the experience and knowledge to guide him, as many previous presidents have done. Do you really think that any president has forged foreign policy without consulting others (with the exception of this complete sociopath currently in the White House who get advice only from people who agree with him)?
Your defense of your candidate is eloquent indeed. However, facts are sometimes painful to those who wish it were otherwise.
It makes no difference in the end whether or not someone has advisors or not. Somebody has to make the final decisions.
I simply cannot in good conscience put this country in the hands of a novice. I didn't support the Chimp and I detest "Bush In A Skirt." Nor would I support her if she was running for dog catcher so you can call off the attack dogs. Obama simply does NOT have the "timber" if you will at this time to be considered for POTUS.
Barack played with the wrong cards, thus his options constrained him in a way that has bnefited Hillary. What John Edwards is trying to do with economic equality, Barack could do the same and put it on a world-wide economic and human equality of justice basis. His background symbolizes the organic globalization of people that was his geneisis. The fate of persons at remote distances and further conscious awreness fom Americans IS just as affecting as what happens to Twin Towers in NYC. Without favorable circumstnaces, Barack's black Kenyan father would never have made it to meet Barack's white, Kansas born mother. Without them the Politics of Hope would not have been conceived and lived by Barack.
Barack should use the global issues, since the President of the United States is the President of the World, even though George "W" is more like a Caesar, than a George Washington in his Presidential role.
When Barack takes embraces the humanitarian politics of his politics of hope, then he will be forced to be something other than another conventional Democrat which the Clintons have the copyright on-at this time.
Barack Obama has a non verbal message - he is black. There is no escaping this reality. That is a non verbal message in his favor - if artfully applied. W.E.B. DuBois, the only black man on the original Board of the NAACP wrote about the 'two-ness' of being both black and American. Obama has bridged the divide - he is both black and American. That artful accomplishment is to be heralded - not avoided. Only special people are able to pull of such feats of image - but he must take advantage of this opportunity.
Ohg.
http://thefireside.wordpress.com/2007/10/11/obama-the-soul-of-black-folk-incarnated/
are you sure he's black? are you sure he's white? does it really matter? he is a viable candidate and a great person. he is wise beyond his years and young enough to relate to the youth of our nation. he is what we need, now.
Sorry definately but as much as I admire Sen. Obama I think you are overboard on that "wise beyond his years" comment. While Obama is indeed intelligent, articulate, and well educated these qualities do not necessarily translate into wisdom. In addition, youth in and of itself is not a qualification for POTUS.
As I've stated before. A fine man and when he gets a bit more seasoned he'll be a first rate candidate.
Take on global warming? John Edwards already has. I think it odd that you are suggesting that Obama needs to do something dramatic and defining. By definition, he is dramatic and defining. So, maybe there is just not as much "there" there as people believe. I don't mean he is not a man of substance. I mean, he may be charismatic, and think and write and speak lovely, communatarian kinds of thoughts, but he may not be someone who should be president - with all his money and with all of Hollywood positively ga ga, he isn't winning. So, using every excuse I can, I would call your attention to the Bill Maher interview with JRE on Friday night: John Edwards in a second said some pretty important things about tackling global warming. His answer to Bill M's question about ethynol was so specific. Have you ever heard BO speak with that level of specificity? Actually, his style reminds me a bit of John Kerry's, rather stentorian. John Edwards is putting ideas out there constantly and with clarity - and he can talk about them and articulate them for real people. So, I guess where I am with this, why this long piece about Barak Obama asking him to do something, when there are candidates already doing something? And by the way, he did define himself in a big way by missing the Iran vote.
Maybe what Sen. Obama needs to do is to present himself and his policy stances honestly and openly, and then let the people decide who they want to elect.
Are we going to elect actors and actresses from now on? If not, then we should look at the candidate, and their positions on issues, and not just their appearance.
once again, the voice of reason! i love you mamacat!
mamacat for president!
I agree Mamacat! I have made my donation to Obama because I believe in his intelligence and honesty!! Compared to the "ding-dong" that has the job now I dont think the learning curve is an issue!! So much of the job of the Presidency is dependent on the people and resources around the office and how they are developed and used! Obama has the skill and mind set to devote himself to America and bring out the best in us all if we allow him the privilege of the office!
This article is the classic example of why we need a Gore/Dean ticket in 08. We need the two best people who can clearly operate above the fray, in the interest of the whole nation.
Anything less is an object lesson in mediocrity.
Mediocrity is the order of the day. Obama, Hillary and Edwards guarantee the powers that be that if they win, most unlikely with them as candidates, there will be no real change. All 3 stood there and said they couldn't guarantee we'd be out of Iraq by 2013!!!!Obama is just another empty suit.
Kucinich is the only one for real change but the media just talks about the "top 3" so they naturally lead in the polls and get the most money. Obama is even for the death penalty!
Kucinich fir a real change!
I wondered how many posts down the thread it would be before some idiot used the "empty suit" insult, once more demonstrating willful ignorance of one of the finest candidates the Dems have ever put up.
Obama is running a good clean campaign. He has lots of money and great ground organization. His message will get across. He doesn't need to do anything stupid. If the sheeplike American people want Clinton nostalgia, then they will elect Hillary and there's not a damn thing Obama or Edwards can do about it.
I have a question.
Although I spent a lifetime as a newspaperman, I'm a relative newcomer to the blogosphere and its people, traditions, etc.
What I don't know is this:
Do the candidates themselves, or those who are close enough to them to make a difference, actually READ any of these blogs and posts?
Much of the material -- particularly the responses, many of which are from ideologues, true believers and wingnuts of various stripes -- falls into the category of humor, conscious or otherwise, providing us with entertainment if nothing more.
But occasionally one stumbles across a jewel.
And in such a felicitous moment, I can only pray that we're not just whistling in the wind, preaching to the choir, or -- well, insert your own cliche.
If I had read Mr. Eskow's column in a newspaper this evening, I would instantly have clipped it and sent a copy to Obama campaign headquarters, urging that it be forwarded to the candidate personally.
If I had Obama's personal e-mail address or that of his campaign manager, I'd forward the Eskow item to him electronically -- attaching some of the posts, particularly the one from Snakeback -- as quickly as my fingers could hit the keys.
If I were in the candidate's living room, blessed with a one-on-one interview, I'd use up half my allotted time reading the Eskow thing to him.
But I don't have any of these options.
In the case of the Obama campaign (which I've supported enthusiasticly since long before it became a campaign), I believe the author's thoughts, and his recommendations, are extraordinarily timely, and at this point perhaps critical.
In this case, I think the candidate would agree, and might follow through and take action accordingly. If it were a cartoon, picture the light bulb clicking on in a thought balloon over the hero's head.
But will Barack ever see it? Please, somebody, make it so.
This is a good question. I believe that the people in these pages are talking to one another or perhaps at one another. But it is doubtful that the candidates are listening. My candidate, John Edwards, is probably too exhausted, as he is running a face to face, look you in the eye, shake hands, on the ground campaign in two states. Elizabeth Edwards may still be in and out, when she is able. Your candidate is too surrounded, I will venture. I will leave you to figure out what I mean by surrounded. The leading candidate no doubt has operatives whose assisgnment it is to respond in these pages where needed. Sort of attack dog diplomacy. And then there are the venomous posters. Sort of self appointed attack dogs, who say vile things. It's enough to make one wonder why one is here in the first place. I am by the way, and I admit it, so tired of hearing or reading the words Obama or Hillary. I would prefer reading about Biden or Dodd a little more, and the fair haired boy and girl (figuratively of course) a little less.
Loading comments…
|
||
Posted October 20, 2007 | 04:58 PM (EST)